The ExChristian.Net blog exists for the express purpose of encouraging those who have decided to leave Christianity behind. This area contains articles sent in between January 2001 and February 2010. To view recent posts, click on the "Home" link.

No. Consider: Do you hate Santa Claus? Or Zeus and Poseidon? The fact is, atheists just don´t believe in "God" or gods. You can´t hate something you don't believe in.

Why don´t atheists believe in God?

The reasons why an atheist doesn´t believe in God can be as varied as the beliefs of believers, but it usually boils down to a simple fact: the atheist just doesn´t see any evidence for the supernatural in general, and God in particular. If you are a Christian, think about why you don´t believe in Zeus or Shiva. That will tell you a lot about why atheists don´t believe in your god, or any god.

So atheists think there´s no greater power than themselves?

Whoa! Who said anything like that? Atheists believe we are just one ordinary life form that managed to evolve on a rock that circles one ordinary sun in one unremarkable galaxy, in a universe of 100 billion such galaxies and ten thousand billion billion such suns. Compare that world-view to the typical Christian mindset: the God of the Universe cares so much about us (me) that he sent his only begotten son to Earth to die for our (my) sins, so that we (I) may have everlasting life. Now ask yourself who is more guilty of arrogance, the Christian or the atheist. An atheist who thinks nothing is greater than him? You´ve got it backwards: an atheist wonders what could possibly be less than him.

Sometimes I hear atheism defined as "the belief that God doesn´t exist". Other times I hear it as "the lack of believe in God". Is there a difference? Which is right?

There is a huge difference. If I were to say to you, "Santa Claus doesn´t exist", I am making an assertion, and a bold one at that: I am absolutely affirming that the being known as Santa Claus does not exist. That is a claim, and, incidentally, an indefensible one. It is absolutely impossible to prove the non-existence of Santa Claus, and it is therefore wrong to positively claim that he doesn´t exist. The same is true of "God" (in the general sense). God cannot be disproved, just as Santa Claus cannot be disproved. But that doesn´t mean we should believe in these beings. If we were to believe in everything that could not be disproved, we´d have to believe in virtually everything - a preposterous way to go through life. Atheism is literally a-theism, meaning "lack of theism" or "lack of belief in God or gods". Atheism is not a claim; it is merely a statement of withheld belief. When someone calls himself an atheist, he is merely saying that he doesn´t subscribe to the god-belief. That is a far cry from positively asserting that God doesn´t exist.

Even atheists as prominent as Christopher Hitchens sometimes fall into the atheism-as-belief trap. In a recent interview for CBS, when asked to define atheism, Mr. Hitchens said, at first, "Well, it is the belief that God does not exist", before realizing his mistake and then adding, "or, it is the lack of belief in God." It is not an either/or proposition. Atheism is not a belief - it is the lack of belief. Atheists make no claims about God; they simply do not believe in Him/Her/It.

Are atheists immoral?

Some are. Some theists are immoral, too. I suspect what you really want to know is: are atheists more immoral than they would be if they didn´t reject the existence of the "source of all morals" (as some Christians would argue)? Personally, I think it´s the other way around. I think religious beliefs are the source of most of the misery in this world. But this is a personal opinion, and there´s not a lot of conclusive evidence to back it up. But consider this (and this is something that Christopher Hitchens has asked numerous times without an adequate answer): Can you think of a moral action performed by a believer that couldn´t have also been performed - unselfishly - by an unbeliever? And then ask yourself when was the last time you read about an atheist blowing himself up in a cafe, or flying an airplane into a building at 500 mph, or killing an abortion doctor, or beheading an infidel, or crucifying a gay man upon a fence, or dragging a black man like an animal behind a car to his death.

Atheists fight irrationality, in whatever form it may take. In the United States, where over 70% of the population claims to be Christian, that irrationality usually takes a Christian form. Atheists in Pakistan, I´m sure, speak out against Islam, while Israeli atheists take on Judaism. American atheists don´t have a bias against Christianity; it´s just what we see most often.

You can´t prove that God doesn´t exist, so isn´t what you´re doing a waste of time?

Possibly. Believers hold their beliefs very deeply, and convincing them to abandon beliefs that they´ve held since childhood is usually a futile effort. It isn´t always about converting people, though. Personally speaking, most of the time I'm simply trying to get people to look at things from a different point of view. When someone wishes me a Merry Christmas at Christmastime, it has probably never occurred to them that there´s a 30% chance I´m not a Christian. Saying things like, "And a Happy Hanukkah to you!" is a great way to raise consciousness. And I´m not trying to prove God doesn´t exist. As I said above, that´s impossible. But that shouldn´t be necessary. We don´t need to prove the non-existence of Santa Claus to be skeptical of his existence. That´s all I´m advocating: skepticism of things that have virtually no supporting evidence.

What do atheists think happens after we die?

In a word: nothing. We live, we die. Just like every creature on the planet.

What´s the point of life, then?

I guess it´s whatever you make of it. Why do you need the promise of an afterlife to find a purpose to this life?

So we´re just an accident?

Well, if you consider four billion years of evolution by the non-random process of natural selection an accident, then yes. Any number of tweaks in the evolutionary process would have guaranteed our non-existence, or at least the existence of a species far different from us. The evolution of life on this planet was not an accident once it got started (natural selection is the complete opposite of a random process), but in a way, every species that exists today is an accidental species, simply because there are so many more ways of being dead than alive. But so what? Even if our existence is completely accidental, and even if everlasting life is an illusion, why does that mean life itself is pointless?

Why are atheists always trying to impose their beliefs on the rest of us?

I don´t see that happening. Give me an example.

How about with the abolishment of school prayer? Or by trying to take "one nation, under God" out of the pledge?

First off, prayer hasn´t been abolished in schools. Students can pray, in private, any time they want. It is only school-sanctioned prayer that the Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional. Second, trying to remove the "under God" wording in the pledge is not an effort to impose a belief system. It is simply an effort - a moral effort, by the way - to get the government to remain neutral with respect to religion. A pledge with the phrase "one nation, under no gods" would be an imposition of atheism. A pledge that says, simply, "one nation, indivisible", is a pledge that remains neutral with respect to religion and respectful of this nation´s diverse religious culture. That´s all atheists want - a government that remains neutral with respect to religion, or, failing that, at least one that isn´t so blatantly pro-Christianity. No "In God We Trust" on currency, no state-sanctioned (and taxpayer funded) Christmas celebrations, no tax breaks for churches, etc.

Do all atheists believe in evolution?

Let´s get some terminology clear first. There are beliefs, and then there are beliefs. I believe it might rain tomorrow. I also believe the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. Failing a cataclysmic disaster, my second belief will turn out to be true. There´s a good chance my first belief, though, will turn out to be false. Clearly, the word "believe" is something we need to pay attention to.

I don´t believe in evolution. As much as I know anything, I know evolution is true, just as I know that there is a force called gravity that obeys an inverse square law. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. We don´t need to believe in things for which there is overwhelming evidence. We simply know them to be true - as much as we can know anything to be true.

I would venture to guess that, yes, virtually all atheists accept the truth of evolution, simply because without the lazy "God did it" argument, there is quite a lot to explain about how we came to be. And evolution is an amazing explanation that´s backed by mountains of evidence.

Are atheists´ lives empty and meaningless?

I guess that would depend on the individual. An empty and meaningless life isn´t an immediate consequence of rejecting the possibility of an afterlife. There would need to be other, more serious, psychological reasons for this. This goes for believers, too. If the only reason your life has meaning is because you´re relying on a better world in the hereafter, then you need therapy, fast. Our lives are as full and meaningful as we make them. If purpose and meaning and fulfillment come to you only as the result of a wish for something better beyond death, that´s when your existence is truly hollow and meaningless.

Aren´t atheists afraid of going to Hell?

Not even remotely. If you are a Christian, are you afraid of Muslim hell? If not, why not? If the Muslims are correct, all infidels (that is, all who reject the teachings of Islam) are bound for everlasting torment in the pits of hell. Does this keep you awake at night? I doubt it - and it shouldn't, either, simply because Muslim hell, like Christian hell, is a human invention, a sick, twisted, immoral doctrine invented by the Church to scare the poor and uneducated into fearful submission. If you are a person of decent moral character, you should be sickened by this evil doctrine.

Yeah, between those evil atheists, those uppity niggers, and those cock-sucking homosexuals, it's just amazing that Christians have the freedoms they do. Christians, somehow, are able to build churches on every corner in the United States, take up the air space on thousands of radio and television stations, publish hundreds of thousands of books every year, hold huge evangelistic crusades at will, and unabashedly express extreme hatred toward any and all opposing voices whenever they damn well please without fear of repercussions.

You Christian trolls are full of shit. Go stick your heads back up your asses where they belong.

Should Christians like these two asinine trolls who just posted ever actually succeed in getting their way, the U.S. will become the United Fascist States of America.

"The Fascist State does not remain indifferent to the fact of religion in general and to that particular positive religion which is Italian Catholicism. The State has no theology, but it has an ethic. . . . The Fascist State does not create a "God" of its own, as Robespierre once, at the height of the Convention's foolishness, wished to do; nor does it vainly seek, like Bolshevism, to expel religion from the minds of men. Fascism respects the God of the ascetics, of the saints, of the heroes, and also God as seen and prayed to by the simple and primitive heart of the people." -- Mussolini's "Doctrine of Fascism"

And remember, fascists hated non-whites and homosexuals nearly as much as many American Christians hate them today.

Too much of Christianity lusts after a dogmatic fascist state where anyone who thinks religion is bunk could be permanently silenced.

Frank Walton wrote:“In this country, atheists do everything they can to prevent Christians from speaking freely about their beliefs.”

Which country would “this country” be?

In my country, atheists do everything they can to prevent the government from promoting Christian beliefs. They haven’t lifted a finger to prevent Christians from promoting their beliefs from their own venues. I am flabbergasted that so many people still can’t tell the difference.

Case in point: have you heard a single atheist complain about Judge Moore since he started touring the country with his graven image of the Decalogue in the back of his pickup truck? No, because it’s his pickup truck. But let him try that stunt in a government venue again, and we (along with the mostly-Christian judges) will be all over his ass—again.

Frank Walton wrote:“Lenin and Trotsky hated Christians specifically because of their profound atheist views. It had nothing to do with simply promoting communism, as communism does not have to be atheistic.

“Millions killed, so your question is so uniformed that I belief it is actually simply ‘disinformation’...you know better.”

Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Saddam Hussein, they all wore mustaches. Does that mean that mustaches encourage murderous behavior? How do you account for the millions of atheists who are decent human beings? And just how does atheism lead to anything? Do you base any of your actions on your non-belief in centaurs?

I think you fail to understand David’s points; thus, it is premature for you to call them “disinformation.”

Stein Master said that "atheists just want to pretend ..." Even without trying to sort out what "want to pretend" really means, I wonder how it explains the somewhat lower rates of things like criminal behavior and divorce among atheists.

As to Frank Walton's claims about the Chinese enforcing atheism on the Tibetans, I wonder if he understands that Buddhism is pretty much an atheistic system to begin with. The Chinese are indeed destroying a religious culture, but it is a cultural clash rather than a religious one.

Certainly communism is not incompatible with religion, and the purges under Stalin (most importantly) should be seen in the same light -- they were primarily political and ideological in nature, and demonstrate the hazards of too much ideology.

The underlying claim seems to be that atheists must assume some collective responsibility for evil done by regimes advocating atheism. Similarly, atheists may (and do) argue that Christians need to feel guilty about evil done by religiously inspired rulers (past and present). The discussion often boils down to a body count competition: who has killed the most people: Stalin and Mao, or various religious power holders? By this reasoning, one cannot really belong to any religious, agnostic, or atheistic group without being guilty of sympathizing with murderers.

Somebody has suggested a way out of this: if organizations or individuals actively and publicly distance themselves from defining views held by other persons, organizations, or ideologies, *mentioned by name*, they should not be held responsible for evil deeds committed in the name of those.

The details may sometimes be difficult here. For example, one may admire the Catholic schools in inner cities, but dislike what that church does otherwise. It may not always be easy to decide when an organization has crossed the line. And, clearly, supporters of a particular ideology or religion are sometimes surprisingly tolerant of evil done by it. This is something we all need to reflect on and resist. It's really all about intellectual honesty...

Can someone tell me how to hate a god? And which god to hate, there are so many of them.

I have an ak47, should I go outside and have a shot at a god?

Which direction do I aim towards? The clouds? The ground?

How can you hate a tree? If you cut it down, do you still hate the tree?

How do you hate something that was postulated in the minds of people that lived over 2000 years ago?

How do you turn your back on a god? Which way is away from a god?

You see, the bible is a book of metaphors of imaginary god concepts, they knew there exists no such thing as a god, but they thought that they could discribe one in exact detail by speaking metaphorically.

By speaking metaphorically, this became the "word" of a god.

People now believe that by speaking metaphorically, they are in fact speaking for this imaginary god.

It's so sad so many people fall for the metaphorical god trap hoax...:-(

Frank Walton: "In this country, atheists do everything they can to prevent Christians from speaking freely about their beliefs."

Such a touchy subject, freedom of speech. Here's some forms of communication.

Persuasive Composition: "A composition in which the writer’s primary purpose is to support a consistent position or opinion with the intention of influencing a particular audience."www.tea.state.tx.us/curriculum/biling/teares-effwri-glossary.doc

Narrative Composition: "A composition in which the writer’s primary purpose is to tell a story, defined as a linked sequence of events that moves through time."www.tea.state.tx.us/curriculum/biling/teares-effwri-glossary.doc

Expository Composition: "The purpose of expository writing is to inform readers about a certain topic or subject. It does not argue for or against the subject. It usually begins with a clear thesis statement in the introduction and is supported by well-developed ideas."www.walton.k12.fl.us/Literacy%20Handbook/dailey2/writing_terminology.htm

A person who communicates on "exposition", is someone trying to convey "new" subject matter or subject matter that would "appear" new to an audience. However, such communication is not used to "persuade", it lays out the subject matter, to expose it for further analysis and contemplation.

A narrative tells a story, where facts are not necessary, a fictional story is as narrative as a non-fictional story; but in either case, the stories are given by a "narrator", without an intent to persuade.

Informative communication is designed to pass facts, objectivity, etc., so that a person is readily able to verify and piece together those facts to build a better understanding of some topic. Informative communication, is not used to "persuade", the facts are what they are.

And, lastly we have "persuasive" communication... While I find little concern, for;

1-Being told a "story" that is "labeled" a personal "story", and the narrator has no expectations.

2-Being informed of factual information, without further expectation from the communicator.

3-Being given "new" subject matter that I may not have been aware of, without further expectation from the communicator.

I do have concern, for someone in public, using any tactic necessary to "persuade" others to act or think a certain way.

Typically, those who persuade, to influence, use "any" tactic at their convenience; deception, denial of information, degradation of other's factual understanding (disinformation), destruction of facts to cover conflicting information (trying to round up historical books to burn, etc.), and disruption in the areas of social and academic endeavor, so that any long term focus on the facts isn't possible.

Now, I really enjoy freedom of speech, if in fact, such freedom is to communicate, “without” the express intent of manipulating others, to accept an ideology that flies in the face of facts and knowledge.

Persuasive communication, is all about, "I want you to do this", as a result of my communication.

While in many ways, there are individuals competing in society on the level of persuasion, for either mutual benefit, or individual gain; there are "organizations" in society that are competing as well.

A nation's "government" is such an organization, that must "compete" with the persuasion of "organized" religion.

Think back to the Catholic out coming of priests that molested children, where the Catholics came out trying to suggest a separation of Catholicism between American and Italian Catholics who fall under the Pope.

If the perception becomes that there is a tie between global organizations that have a great impact on national elections, such organizations are considered a "political threat", or at least a political influence in the outcome of this country's governmental stability.

Religions are perceived as "political threats" by many governments and organizations. Not, because a religion is "telling the Truth" as it claims, as that would be informative and educational, but because a religion is only a religion, when it has a religious "leader" (political figure) and a following (devoted citizens).

If an organization "supports" the role of the government and it's authority to make laws, restricting religious practices (sacrificing humans on rock pyres, etc.), then there is no conflict of interest.

However, throughout history, many "religious leaders" didn't find it profitable to lose their power or influence over their followers because of governmental regulations, and went to war with their governments.

So, Frank, don't paint governments as out-to-get "just" Christians, over history; as if they are "exclusive" to the subjugation of a national authority.

If Christian leaders in America were to come under one religious authority, and such an authority started imposing their beliefs as "law", and usurping the authority of the U.S. government; we would see Christianity busted up like organized "crime" - today.

The obvious issue with Christianity isn't that the individually religious have a "voice", it's that Christianity most fundamentally requires a political "leader" who leads through persuasion and influence - not "facts".

If the voice of a Christian is to "exclaim", a strong, life-determining, logic-defying belief, to others, to suggest they have made it to "heaven", hallelujah; then why can't they just by happy with their "voice"... Why the need to "persist" in a God recruitment drive, using a selective religious/political leader.

The answer should be obvious; in order to "sustain" a belief, that defies logic, and the Reality that surrounds us, there has to be "reinforcement", and that requires organized centers to continually propagate belief. And, that requires skilled politicians to keep a following.

Politicians, use techniques to generate a following; referring to fears (death, etc.), and even to referring to “other” religions and the need to counter them with the “Truth”, etc. In the end however, it’s all about political technique, instead of “facts” that are used to “persuade”.

1. Atheism is a distinct lack of belief in a theistic system. Theistic systems depend upon the enforcement of supernatural or fantastic claims through a central authority, usually through violence and intimidation. 'Atheist' leaders throughout history that Christians love to bring - Hitler, Lenin, Mao, etc. - were nothing if not theistic. These were clearly men that believed that they were nothing short of something greater than a mere mortal, and then enforced that view with violence and intimidation. Hitler was fond of invoking the name of Prodvidence and God, thus establishing a connection between himself and the Divine, and even said that he felt he was doing the work of Jesus by exterminating the Jews. Why would an ATHEIST do this? Every other 'atheist' leader had similar practices. Ergo, they were THEISTS, not atheists. and if they did not directly equate themselves with the Divine, they nonetheless created a theistic system where they were the supreme, unquestionable, all-powerful supernatural ruler. Ergo, they were THEISTS, not atheists.

2. Hating God and hating the concept of God are two different things. In order to hate God, one must believe that God is real. In order to hate the concept of God, one must hate organized religion and its enforcers. If one hates God, then they believe in God. In one hates the concept of God, they do not believe in God. So it is impossible for an atheist to hate God; an atheist hates the concept of God.

3. There is no God. That is why what we do NOW matters so much. If there was a God, we would know that our actions toward other people ULTIMATELY don't matter - we can just atone for them later!

I think the varied responses to just this Q&A show that Atheists are varied in their outllooks on religion. Do atheists hate God? - A true atheist does not hate God. However, some people call themselves atheists simply because they feel they have been dealt an injustice and they see atheism as a way of stricking back at God.

Do atheists hate Christians?- Some hate Christians specifically, many more rate any form of religion. What I find most disturbing is the degree of hate I see in just this thread against those who have a view point different than the majority of the board. If this board is a true example of what atheists are like I fear the outcome when you control the electorate. I see two posts from non-atheists. Neither degrades anyone in this forum. They put forward their views and provide examples. The response to them is rake them across the coals. Am I to believe that when you hold power you will treat these two humanely.

On another point. I am tired of seeing all christians portayed as racist, ignorant, blood thirsty, tyrants. Are their people that "claim" to be Christians that commit all kinds of evil in Gods name? Yes and no matter what they think, the Bible makes very clear that if there is a God, they will burn in hell. Are their Christians that are ignorant? Yes, though don't limit this to Christians. I have meet many atheists that share this ignorance. Atheism has become fashionable in some circles and many are atheists without knowing why. I remember talking to one atheist in particular that told me that all educated people are atheists. When pressed for why this was he was unable to give an answer other than to say that Science disproves the existance of God. When questioned further, he was unable to say what that proof was exactly. I do not label Atheists as ignorant, please refrain from labeling Christians as ignorant. The fact that these two are on this board, speaks to the fact that they are at least seeking knowledge.

Another thing to consider. Last I saw it was still the "Theory" of Evolution. This means that the scientific community is still not certain of whether it is true or not. There is quite alot of evidence, but there are also some difficulties. The biggest is that the fossil record shows evolution through macroevolution, but any evolution through the current model would have to be microevolution. The fossil record should be littered with species showwing gradual evolution into new species, it is not. Don't get me wrong here there is alot of evidence, but science is noted for being objective and citing something as absolute fact before it is truely confirmed eliminates this objectivity.

You know, we only have theories of gravity and relativity, but they work very well indeed - well enough to send men to the moon and rockets past planets to the edge of our solar system. A theory remains a theory until someone can prove beyond doubt that it is fact. Gravity remains a theory even though it is the best explanation of things we observe around us.

Similarly evolution will remain a theory until someone invents that time machine and brings back irrefutable proof of each step of the evolutionary process. However, it still remains the best explanation of things we observe around us - including the evolution of bacteria that we can actually see happening and the fossil record.

By the way, humans have been using the theory of evolution for hundreds if not thousands of years in order to breed animals which are better at a particular purpose - some dogs are better at retrieving dead birds than others, some cows give better milk yields, and so on. If evolution doesn't happen it becomes very difficult to explain these things - unless you care to play the "God can do magic" card, in which case it becomes pointless trying to understand anything about the universe around us.

It has been months since I've had the time to post something at this website, but Frank Walton's idioticcomment that atheists in this country are trying to keep Christians from speaking out about their beliefs dearly deserves a rebuttal.

I live in a small town here in theTexas portion of the Bible Belt, and I can say with only slight exageration there is a church onevery street corner, most of themfundamentalist or evangelical. In the nine-and-a-half years I've lived here, I've yet to see oneagnostic or atheist picketing achurch service, or trying to prevent any Christian from expressing their views. I have yet to see any government agents standing outside these churches, taking the names and addresses ofanyone attending these services.When I turn on the TV or radio, Iam surrounded with Christian programming seven days a week, promoting hate and scorn toward anyone who doesn't share in theirdelusional lifestyle.

Then again, we all know how Christians love to scream "persecution!" anytime someone disagrees with them.

The Bible makes it very clear that no matter how nice or good a person is, unless they accept Jesus Christ they will burn in Hell for all eternity. This is the central doctrine of Christianity. It is no surprise then that there are so many Christians tha do horrible things. No matter how nice a Christian is, this is the central doctrine of their belief system. There is no getting around it. With a belief system like that, even the nicest person can be indoctrinated to do horrible things.

To clear up a misunderstanding between scientific “fact” and scientific “theory”:

In science, there is no “graduation” from theory to fact. A scientific fact is an observation. (A scientific law is a generalization of observations.) A scientific theory is an explanation of facts. For example, the facts of gravity are that things fall down or move in orbits, following conic-sectional trajectories; and the current theory of gravity is general relativity.

Likewise, descent with modification is the fact of evolution. The change and diversification of life forms over time, as recorded in the fossil record, is the fact of evolution. The anatomical and molecular similarities between life forms are facts—although some argue that these facts support a Magical Superdaddy rather than common descent. However, the theories of natural selection, punctuated equilibrium, genetic drift, etc. will always remain theories—not because they are uncertain, but because they are explanations, not observations.

Fossil creation is an extremely rare process. We should not expect the fossil record to be littered with anything. As slowly as evolution occurs, it is still expected for the record to skip over complete transitions.

Nevertheless, paleontologists find transitional links all the time. The pattern of long periods of stability followed by “abrupt” transitions is addressed by the theory of punctuated equilibrium. “Abrupt” meaning “hundreds of thousands of years,” or “millions of years.”

Translation wrote: "The Bible makes it very clear that no matter how nice or good a person is, unless they accept Jesus Christ they will burn in Hell for all eternity. This is the central doctrine of Christianity."

You raise a good point, Translation, one that I've brought to the attention of our Christian guests from time to time---and that is that "sin" is ultimately irrelevant. The alleged "Laws" and "Commandments" of bibegod?... the same; irrelevant. It is ultimately "belief" that trumps everything.

Anonymous #8071808935210762320 wrote: Last I saw it was still the "Theory" of Evolution. This means that the scientific community is still not certain of whether it is true or not. There is quite alot of evidence, but there are also some difficulties. The biggest is that the fossil record shows evolution through macroevolution, but any evolution through the current model would have to be microevolution. The fossil record should be littered with species showwing gradual evolution into new species, it is not.

Dear Anonymous #8071808935210762320,

You, like most of the Creationists *who show up here(*notice, I refer to people as "who", not "that"), spend all of your time attacking the Theory of Evolution, as if "Creationism"..i.e..'magic', would be true by default, if Evolution were false. This is non-sequitur. It is the fallacious assumption that if "A", then "B". In other words, if "A", Evolution is "false".... then "B", "Creationism" is "true".

In other words, where is your evidence for Creationism; where is the science in "I.D."?????

Instead of coming here, making lame and pathetic arguments, arguments that can't even hold themselves up on crutches, only to watch those arguments have their feet brutally kicked out from beneath themselves by the likes of us, try doing this instead:

Stand in front of a mirror. Tell yourself what a worthless piece of shit you really are. Tell yourself that you must be submissive, and that without your invisible friend you are nothing. Compliment this with flagellations, mutilations, and whatever other physical torture you need to find an outlet for your repressed sexuality. It might help to have an image of Jesus nearby to focus on when you cut yourself, so that the Christian meme will be forced even deeper into your brain. By focusing on Jesus, you will associate Jesus with sexual release. Then, cry yourself to sleep. Repeat the process the next day.

None of this involves coming here and posting weak arguments and then tucking tail and leaving so that you don't have to watch those arguments be eaten alive like a three-legged antelope being pounced on by vicious lions. Because we all know that's why you do this: you doubt, and it makes you feel better to stick your toe in the atheist pool and then pull it out quickly. You're not fooling anyone, Christians.